You’re the one who trotted out the base eligibility requirements as an answer to whether or not she’s qualified; you make the argument. I’m just saying that’s a pointless rejoinder to someone’s statement that Candidate X is unqualified for a position, and it makes me twitch when I see it trotted out, for Palin or for Kennedy. No kidding she’s eligible or else she wouldn’t be under discussion; put that aside and move on to actual points.
I’d also throw out there that an appointed official should be subject to more stringent requirements vis-a-vis qualifications. If the voters want to elect someone unqualified, that’s their business.
Kennedy is a tacky idiot. Who ever heard of anyone publicly campaigning for an appointment. What’s she trying to do. Twist Peterson’s arm ?
Also I think this is a great opportunity for Kennedy-bashers–those who are IRATE that some celeb ditz gets appointed Senator–to examine this issue in non-partisan terms. If you support, say, Schwartzenegger’s first attempt to gain the Governorship of calleefawwwwn-eee-agh (or whatever state he thinks he runs) then please argue why a left-wing actor with similar credentials would not be equally qualified. Let’s take, oh, I don’t know–Sean Penn? Or Barbara Streisand? If you’re visceral response to either of those two names would be anger and resentment, let’s question the roots of those emotions, in the interests of not chasing our tails over Caroline Kennedy. If the concept of a citizen serving in high office is okay–and that’s the least part of my objection to Schwartzenegger’s qualifications–then any citizen lucky enough to get himself noticed by the Governor or the voters for election should be fine.
Take this opportunity to examine your own standards instead of just focussing on the narrow partisan and temporal issues in this one case. Do you operate off principles or is every case different, depending on your partisan perspective? If the latter is the case, then do you need to participate in electoral discussions concerning fairness and equity, when you’ve demonstrated the unimportance of those qualities?
Actually, my point was that she would have to prove that she actually held a position that qualified her. It’s an affirmative assertion. If she wants to pick one of her jobs, she can explain what she did, and how it would bear on her Senate career. She might also express a political viewpoint or two, perhaps on some issue where Democrats disagree, like merit pay for teachers.
That’s just dumb. Whether you’re qualified or not, the voters’ decision means you belong there. Even if you’re an Austrian Kennedy-in-Law and a lousy actor and a sexually-harassing pot-smoking bodybuilder.
Carolyn Maloney hasn’t been mentioned yet. I only know what I just read but she looks like a pretty solid candidate. She beat an incumbent congressman in 1992 and has managed to stay put since then. She’s strong on woman and family issues, and by that I don’t just mean that she is female herself, she’s has her name on laws and has written a book on woman’s concerns. She has been endorsed by NOW. She has Kennedy’s self-cited qualification of being a mother. She’s no more detached from upstate than Kennedy is, both are Manhattanites and Kennedy might actually live in her district.
Nutty Bunny also has a good point with Gillibrand, and so I could see NY woman voters being none too pleased when not one but two congresswomen are passed over for someone with minimal political experience. Everyone likes the idea of a “political outsider” when they’re up against someone you don’t like. When you already have someone you like, well, that’s different. I don’t live in NY anymore, I’m not exactly big on woman’s issues, and even I would be kinda mad if Kennedy gets this seat.
Or, from Hairspray, “Be ready for a whole lot of ugly from an endless parade of stupid.”
People might have less of a problem if she were going the Hillary route and actually campaigning to be elected to the Senate. What she’s doing is playing inside baseball and leaning on her family name to be appointed to a Senate seat. I really don’t think she’d be facing quite this much resistance (especially from the Democratic side of the fence) if she were to wait until the seat comes up for election and fought a primary battle for it.
Again, step back from the particulars: what if we were talking about some right-wing twit with connections being appointed to the Senate by some Pubbie Governor? I have no doubt that some of you would stick to your position here, but some others would be (at least to themselves) far less appalled at the idea of a totally unqualified citizen being appointed to the Senate.
See above- I’m a card carrying liberal and Kennedy would probably favor policies that would be right in line with my political beliefs; it makes a big difference for me, though, that she’s gunning for an appointment rather than trying to get elected.
The fact that unqualified people can be elected is simply a function of having a democracy of this size; name recognition is handy, and usually carries the day.
Not always, of course - just look at Obama.
I don’t see what difference it makes. What’re you the Hypocrite Hunter? This is the sort of thing I expect from Republicans. Democrats are supposed to be different.
Well, if you’re just bitching because she’s a liberal, and a limousine liberal at that, then fuck it. This isn’t a discussion, it’s just expressing partisan views which is boring and redundant. If you’ve got some principle you’re trying to express, though, then state it in terms you’'re willing to live with whatever narrow political issues are at stake.
Nepotism and cronyism are already inherent to our supposed meritocracy. There are two options here: 1) oppose Kennedy’s appointment on principle, as I am; or 2) Support Kennedy’s appointment since the other side is doing it too.
My choice of option 1 suggests that I’m a bit thick, since nothing I do will have any effect vis-a-vis keeping extra Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons out of office; still, it’s my position and I’m sticking with it.
That’s a fair point and one with which I would agree. I only noted that the OP rants on (and, on further review, continues to rant on), about how she lacks qualifications, apparently based on nothing more than his ignorance of what it takes to be the director or president of an NGO.
Regardless of whether or not she’s a figurehead, her directorship of the Kennedy Foundation is unlikely to have been earned on merit, and should be discounted. The NYC Public School thingy is a bit different, but IMHO does not qualify her for appointment to a Senate seat.
I’m not sure that that follows. Have all the directors been family members or political proteges of JFK? She might have been picked because she had demonstrated the capacity to handle the job.
Regardless how she was picked, the things to examine are her actual actions in the role. Has she had more duties than smiling and waving? Has she carried out tasks of administration competently?
Judging a person’s competence should be based on how that person carried out tasks, not how they happened to be picked for a position.
I just wanted to chime in and say(hope) that progressive Rep. Jerrold Nadleris also in the mix. I saw him in a recent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! and was very impressed; doubly so after checking out his voting record. Personally I think it is nice to have an appointment be a previously(or already) elected official with a clear voting record; just seems to make things a lot less messy.
I have no real problems with Caroline Kennedy, though all I really know of her was a little from the recent campaign season. I would have problem if she were picked or is trying to get picked solely on her name.
However, after some of the not-so-very progressive post-election decisions so far (Lieberman, Clinton, Warren), I could use a lift. Adding Coleman and Nadler to the Senate would be like late x-mas gifts and a great way to start the new year and administration.
Tonight…
Steve hunts the elusive Murkowski-loving Kennedy-basher!
I would think that this would be used the other way, considering how much criticism that appointment got, at least from those who both knew and cared.
That’s the problem here. Since we’re not likely to get a look at her personnel file, we can’t assume that she’s done a good job.
Just think of Mike Brown (the “Great job, Brownie!” guy). If not for Katrina, his most recent employment history entry would have read Undersecretary for Emergency Preparedness (or whatever) and you’d assume he did a pretty good job, thus qualifying him for the Senate…